Even the people who enjoyed it can't help but compare it to a hugely successful and highly-acclaimed trilogy. I suspect that the people who consider it adequate actually liked it rather a lot, but up against the LOTR, it's on a hiding to nothing...

I'm sure not every critic is in that mindset, but I got that vibe from quite a few of them. It's as if the Hobbit wasn't emotionally 'big' enough, while being too 'big' in terms of running time.

I obviously won't know for sure until next week, but I have a feeling that they made it as emotionally 'big' as they could. I don't think "An Unexpected Party" through "Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire" could ever match up to any of the Lord of the Rings films in that way. Even with the added material, the story just doesn't have the same stakes (at least not yet).

I am still sure I will enjoy this just for material. I love The Hobbit and I think Freeman will nail it. But I also know that it might not quite match FOTR (the gold standard for me in the LOTR) from a filmmaking perspective. I just don't think Jackson has the heart when it comes to editing. That it is bloated, after making the decision to split the material up even more, does not surprise me after ROTK, Kong and The Lovely Bones. He makes good films and then hides them.

There are about six or seven pretty positive reviews (that I've read) that are already out there that just haven't been put onto Rotten Tomatoes yet. Assuming they ever get put on there... I'm not exactly sure how RT's system for accepting reviews works.

But of course twenty terrible reviews could show up and ruin everything.

AUJ seems to be a very light movie with a lot of silliness thrown in...
[In reply to]

Can't Post

These NEVER fare well with the critics regardless of their artistic merit (quality of acting, set design or artistic direction). So the lukewarm critical reception is not surprising. This is not a movie for critics.

Tragedy is always more respected than comedy, but the latter is harder to pull off well.

The following quote highlights one of the biggest concerns/problems for me
[In reply to]

Can't Post

"And where the Rings trilogy had weight, The Hobbit is all wigs and slapstick and head-lopping violence unsuitable for children—who are the only audience who won't be bored to tears." Now, I doubt that the latter part of that statement holds water (and my other big concern is the huge narrative/history changes to Azanulbizar/Nanduhurion and all things related), but the first part about the tone versus the violence really bothers me. The tone is properly lighter, the humour and pacing done clearly with children in mind. . . but then he evidently piles on so much gore that he might have come close to stumbling into R territory. And while I know some laud an excess of violence, the graphic shots really are not required. Added gore does not equal added gravitas. If that were the case, Sin City would have been taken much more seriously. Clearly knowing that The Hobbit was going to be a big holiday draw for families and children, Jackson could have kept all of the mature themes that might, in places, go over a younger viewers head, without ratcheting the gore to R worthy levels. It seems like an obnoxious move by a fanboy trying to prove he is "hardcore" enough, and that the film isn't "kiddy" stuff. It is not necessary to go gore crazy just to prove maturity (gratuitious gore doesn't achieve that goal anyway). What is as troubling is that, by all accounts, the history of The Dwarves is going to be drastically (and unnecessarily) changed. So we get all the gore of The Dwarf/Orc war, in a movie that is supposed to be at least child accessible, and yet the actual history of that war is going to be largely erroneous. I have the feeling that this whole business may end up being my most disliked part of the film.

Everything else sounds mostly encouraging, however, and some of the critical complaints seem unreasonable, when one considers the source of the story. "Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

After a quick scan through of most of the reviews, it seems as though this first film, although it doesn't live up to its predecessors, it is still a great movie. Most of the review scores, are either 4 - 4 1/2 stars which is still the hallmark of a very good movie. It seems as though most of the complaints feature around

A long introduction to get the story moving - i think one review said that "At 90 minutes it felt as if they still hadn't got anywhere".

Obviously, there is controversy surrounding the HFR which is to be expected. At the moment it seems as though many are split 50/50.

For me, the biggest issue that has arisen so far, has been the over-use of CGI mentioned in many reviews. I feel that this could be one of the most critical issues in the film.

Finally, the 'Cartoonish humour" that seems to be mentioned in most reviews. Personally, i don't have a problem with this as the Book itself was a much lighter affair aimed at children, and therefore it is to be expected.

I think it is important to note that some of these reviewers may have not have read the book, and therefore are comparing the content to that of the original trilogy, for which there is no comparison. They are completely separate stories told in the same universe with interlinking themes and sub-plots, something that many reviewers are failing to understand. For all that, i feel that this film will be something special although perhaps not quite up there with the original trilogy. As one reviewer put it "This is The Hobbit Episode 1 but its no Phantom Menace".

I´m a fan too you know, but I try to look at what is best for the movie, not necessarily bringing bad ideas from the book into it just for the sake of being true to Tolkien.

The only reason there were 13 dwarves in the book was so Bilbo could be the "lucky number". Most of them have no reason to be in the story at all and the only thing you get to know about them is their names.

It seems like the biggest problem with most reviews so far
[In reply to]

Can't Post

They seem to be criticizing the book's story which, apparently, is very similar to the films story. This is actually great news for people worrying the film wouldn't be faithful to the book. I also feel like a lot of the reviews are taking too much time to explain the effects rather than talking about the story.

A lot of the reviews make the film sound in the same spirit of the book. It's nothing super serious or emotional, but it's a great movie, some even calling it the best blockbuster of the year. That's fine with me. "You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

i can see the posters point .....BUT....there needs to be that number of them, so they act like a mini army.....any less number and there would be complaints from the critics about how they keep going through the story (some critics are moaning about it now) so what would they have been saying with even less members of the company....6 dwarves and a hobbit to go up against dragons etc etc.....

Which at this early stage seem to be coming in with fairly good but not as good as LOTR, are the difficulties with what we might consider to be features of the text (and, somewhat surprisingly, the general praise for bits not in the book)

As a matter of fact there are enough people who think the same about the LOTR as some of the reviewers do about AUJ. Though I have some pacing issues with King Kong (mainly the 2 NY acts), I never in any way felt that the LOTR EE dragged. In fact I would have loved to see even more of Middleearth. The only thing that slyightly worries me is the overuse of CGI, I always praised the SFX of LOTR over the ones of the Star Wars prequels, because from watching the EE appendices, you get the notion that PJ loves practical effects and minitures and only resorts to CGI as a last resort. Now though, it appears as if he has become a bit too obsessed with his new facial mo-capping that he decided to add too much CG-creatures.

However I will not let reviews dampen my enthusiasm for a movie I waited so long to see, I already have my ticket for 48fps 3D next Wednesday and will gladly report my opinion on the movie then...